Please note that there is still a bug for null wait event with 9.2.0.3.0. Oracle
promised that it will be fixed with 9.2.0.3.0 but it has not. The bad news is that it
has no ETA for it. Hopefully it will be fixed with 10i or 11i.
Without fixing this bug, it is very hard to identify the performan
That means that it's going to achieve the ultimate stability in 3 years?
The same stability that was achieved by VMS and RSX?
-Original Message-
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:49 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Stephan,
I am wondering why would you not rate Tru64 as a stab
I know that one is still wet behind the ears. I was debating whether or not to stay
on 9.2.0.1 until 9.2.0.3 has been out there a few weeks. I'd hate to see them
withdraw a patchset after I've applied it (like 8.1.6.3 or 8.1.7.2.0).
Thanks for the replies.
Jay
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/18/03
Ah yes, but they've promised that all the Tru64 capabilities will be in
HP-UX by then. And of course, we always believe vendors' promises,
don't we? :)
Pete
"Controlling developers is like herding cats."
Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook
"Oh no, it's not. It's much harder than that!"
Bruce Pihla
64 platform was turned into an abortion that is an
embarrassment to the Unix world.
> -Original Message-
> From: Arup Nanda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: 9i - Which Patchset
>
Stephan,
I am wondering why would you not rate Tru64 as a stable platform. We are
using it for all our OLTP and datawarehouse needs; and it has been quite
stable. It's rather unfortunate that HP is retiring it in 3 years.
Arup Nanda
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list OR
Jay,
We are running 9.2.0.3 On Tru64. Downloaded and applied just three days ago
(it came out in March 14th). Took care of two bugs I opened up with respect
to subpartition splitting and moving the index subpartition to a separate
tablespace.
Although it's too early to pass a verdict; it seems st
8, 2003 9:59 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: 9i - Which Patchset
>
>
> Any opinions on which patchset of 9.2 is most stable: 9.2.0.1,
> 9.2.0.2, 9.2.0.3? We're running HP Tru64.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Jay Hostetter
> Oracle DBA
>
Title: RE: 9i - Which Patchset
9.2.0.3
-Original Message-
From: Jay Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:59 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: 9i - Which Patchset
Any opinions on which patchset of 9.2 is most stable: 9.2.0.1
Title: RE: 9i - Which Patchset
There are some serious security bugs that you have to either apply patches individually or use 9.2.0.3. Also, I can't help thinking that the older releases (for the most part) contain everything in the previous patchsets plus more fixes. Therefore, if
Given my experience here, "stable" and "Tru64" don't go together. As to the
patch number, Oracle support usually requires that you be at the latest
patch level.
> -Original Message-
>
> Any opinions on which patchset of 9.2 is most stable:
> 9.2.0.1, 9.2.0.2, 9.2.0.3? We're running H
Any opinions on which patchset of 9.2 is most stable: 9.2.0.1, 9.2.0.2, 9.2.0.3?
We're running HP Tru64.
Thanks!
Jay Hostetter
Oracle DBA
D. & E. Communications
Ephrata, PA USA
**DISCLAIMER
This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended for the use of the
individual or
12 matches
Mail list logo